| Question asked
|
in '''5 EMPIRICAL EVALUATION''' we read, " … in '''5 EMPIRICAL EVALUATION''' we read, "There are an increasing number of publicly available RDF data sets from those that are narrowly focused (e.g. DBLP, ODP) to those with broader scope covering multiple domains (e.g. TAP, SWETO). However, most of these presented limitations that made them unsuitable as evaluation testbeds for SemRank. … Consequently, the evaluation of SemRank discussed here was done on synthetically generated data. The data generation was guided by rules to ensure that data distributions mirror the real world." The authors state that they believe that "testbeds for the Semantic Web" are in "early developmental stages". Nonetheless, it seems like they are claiming that the ''real'' world data available to them does not mirror the real world, and so come up with their own model of the real world. How accurate is their perception that the current datasets do not accurately reflect the real world, and how realistic is their expectation that the structure will evolve significantly? More importantly, how does this affect their evaluation. Have they simply developed data sets on which SemRank is promising, or have they shown that SemRank is ready for the World of Tomorrow? emRank is ready for the World of Tomorrow?
|
